Tailscale: "Allow Remote Access WAN" not Advertising Exit Node

[monorailmedic]

I have several GLiNet routers I use at various houses to maintain a Tailnet. Today I replaced my main router with a GL-MT6000/Flint 2. After setting it up, however, I found that despite having connected to/enabling Tailscale and checking "Allow Remote Access WAN", this device is not advertising an exit node.

To be clear, it shows on my Tailnet, and I can configure the device (enabling the advertised subnets, for example), but I can't enable it as an exit node as it doesn't seem to be setting the appropriate flag.

I tried this out of the box, I then upgraded Tailscale using this script (which I do on all of my GLiNet devices), and found the exact same results. I've disabled and enabled Tailscale on the router and restarted the device - but the problem remains.

I also tried to SSH in and run tailscale up --advertise-exit-node, but still nothing.

Any thoughts or ideas?

[bruce]

Hello,

Do you want to the Flint2 host the exit node of Tailscale?

Sorry but the GL GUI does not support this feature.

Please refer to this thread to manually configure:

Brume 2 as a Tailscale exit node

Thanks @Dwagie! However I’m a linux/shell noob, so I got somewhat confused by the instructions. But finally I figured it out. Here are some more detailed instructions for my fellow noobs: SSH into the Brume 2 by running ssh root@[ip or hostname of Brume] (e.g. ssh [email protected] if on the same local network with the default subnet). You can also use its tailnet IP or hostname assuming you’ve already connected it to your Tailscale account. Enter your Brume 2 password and hit enter/return E…

[monorailmedic]

Ah, thanks! Re-reading it I now see I misunderstood this toggle, and gl_tailscale appears to be exactly what I was poking around for last night in attempt to manually add the flag.

I'm a bit surprised this isn't in the UI at this point. I use a NAS as my main exit node, plus another on a VPS, but like having a backup at the same location as the NAS. Any reason for the omission? It seems a relatively simple function - easier than subnet routing.